Was Thomas Becket a Saint or a Troublemaker?
Four historians consider the reputation of Henry II’s ‘turbulent priest’. Was Thomas Becket’s martyrdom his redeeming feature?
‘Medieval sanctity was usually not equivalent to a life of cherubic sweetness’
Rachel Koopmans, Associate Professor of History, York University, Toronto
A saint? Yes. Citizens of Canterbury began mopping up Thomas Becket’s blood as martyr’s relics almost before his body was cold. Within five years of his death, Becket was considered to be a saint by virtually everyone. Even his arch-enemies came around. Henry II believed that Becket miraculously fought on his side and saved his kingdom from rebellion in 1174. Gilbert Foliot, the Bishop of London, hated Becket, in part because he thought he should have been archbishop, but he too later believed that Becket had performed a miracle for him. Becket was not just a saint: he was one of the great medieval saints, drawing in pilgrims from across Latin Christendom. Lollard heretics, who rejected sanctity wholesale, were some of the very few who dissented, speaking of Becket as ‘Thomas of Cankerbury’.
To continue reading this article you need to purchase a subscription, available from only £5.
Start my trial subscription now
If you have already purchased access, or are a print & archive subscriber, please ensure you are logged in.
Please email digital@historytoday.com if you have any problems.
